Objective To summarize a new type of proximal humerus fracture—proximal humerus degloving fracture, and discuss its injury mechanism, classification criteria, and treatment methods. Methods The clinical data of 23 patients with proximal humerus degloving fracture between September 2009 and September 2016 was retrospectively analyzed. There were 14 males and 9 females, with an average age of 39.7 years (range, 21-66 years). The causes of injury was sprain in 2 cases, falling from height in 8 cases, and traffic accident in 13 cases. The time from injury to operation was 3-116 days (mean, 17.1 days). There were 2 cases of posterior dislocation of humeral head, 3 cases of anterior dislocation of humeral head, 3 cases of other fractures, and 2 cases of brachial plexus injury. All patients had varying degrees of rotator cuff injuries. According to the self-determined fracture classification criteria, there were 6 cases of internal rotation type, 14 cases of external rotation type, and 3 cases of abduction type. All patients underwent open reduction and internal fixation. Results All patients were followed up 9-24 months (mean, 17 months). All incisions healed by the first intention. X-ray films showed that all fractures healed at 3-5 months after operation (mean, 3.6 months). According to the Neer’s shoulder functional evaluation criteria at 6 months, the shoulder function was rated as excellent in 16 cases, good in 5 cases, fair in 1 case, and poor in 1 case, and the excellent and good rate was 84.6%. The rotator cuff tear recurred in 1 case and was repaired again. Conclusion The injury mechanism of proximal humerus degloving fracture may be the extreme internal rotation, extreme external rotation, or extreme abduction. Reduction and internal fixation is an effective treatment. The focus of the treatment is not only the fixation of the fracture, but also the repair and reconstruction of the rotator cuff.

Citation： LI Wenqing, ZHANG Zuojun, LIU Yunlong. Treatment experience of proximal humerus degloving fracture. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2018, 32(12): 1540-1544. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.201804057 Copy